His contention remains that as Abu Bakr –may Allah be pleased with him- recited Qur’an 3:144 to make the companions believe that Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- had died, it is an evidence for the death of all the earlier Prophets.

‘And Muhammad is but a messenger, there have been messengers before him. So, if he dies or is killed, would you turn back on your heels?’

And the words from al-Shahristani go as;

The highlighted words when translated mean;

“’Umar bin al-Khattab said, Whoever said that Muhammad has died I will kill him with this sword of mine and he has been raised to the heavens as was raised ‘Eisa ibn Maryam –may Allah bless him.” (al-Milal wal Nahl p.9)

Narrated Abu Salamah bin ‘Abd al-Rahman: The people rushed to the Prophet, may Allah bless him, in the apartment of ‘Aisha to look at him. They said: “How can he die since he is a witness to us and we are witnesses to other people? … No! by Allah! He has not died; but he has been raised as ‘Eisa ibn Maryam was made to ascend.” (Tabaqat al-Kubra 2/271)

The narration at first place proves that not merely ‘Umar but other companions too referred to ascension of ‘Eisa –may Allah bless him and be pleased with them all.

It further proves that at the back of their minds the blessed companions had the idea that ‘Eisa ibn Maryam –may Allah bless him- was alive and has been raised to the heavens and will return.

A query killed:

Lest one say, ‘Eisa’ –may Allah bless him- ascension was not physical because the companions said that while the body of the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- was present in front of them, the response is that they said it out of the shock and inability to believe in the death of the Holy Prophet.

We read:

فلم يزل عمر يتكلم ، حتى أزبد شدقاه

“’Umar continued speaking till the edges of his mouth were filled with foam.” (Kanzul ‘Ummal, Hadith 18773)

This was surely due to him being much affected by the tragedy.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad also said:

“And due to the sorrow he (‘Umar) was like the people who lose senses.” (Tuhfa Ghaznawiya p.55 –R.K. vol.15 p.588)

Moreover ‘Umar and other companions alluded to ‘Eisa’ –may Allah bless him- ascension to contend against the death of the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- which also shows they belief in the life of ‘Eisa –may Allah bless him.

When the Messenger of Allah –may Allah bless him- died, people wept. Thereupon ‘Umar bin al-Khattab stood as a preacher in the mosque and declared, “I should not hear anyone saying that Muhammad was dead. He has only been summoned (by Allah) as Musa ibn ‘Imran had been summoned and he had remained away from his people for forty nights …” (Kanzul ‘Ummal, Hadith 18772)

Can one say that even Musa Ibn ‘Imran was summoned to Mt. Sinai (al-Tur) for forty days only spiritually or metaphorically?

These narrations are solid evidence that companions had firm belief in the ascension of ‘Eisa ibn Maryam very much like in the fact of Musa Ibn ‘Imran being summoned by Allah to Mt. Sinai –may Allah bless them both. And it was just the overwhelming moment of shock that was making them to relate these things with the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him.

Abu Bakr’s speech and Qur’an 3:144:

Question remains as to the intent and implication of Abu Bakr’s speech on the occasion. Abu Bakr –may Allah be pleased with him- recited Qur’an 3:144 on this occasion.

‘And Muhammad is but a messenger, there have been messengers before him. So, if he dies or is killed, would you turn back on your heels?’ (Qur’an 3:144)

Ahmadiyya allege that what he meant was to convey that all the prophets before the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless them all- had died and similarly he also died. And they contend, it implies according to him ‘Eisa ibn Maryam –may Allah bless him- was also dead.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad argued that in the above verse the word خَلَتْ (khalat) means death and he maintained that taking to mean otherwise was simply absurd.

The fact of the matter, however, remains that his argument itself is totally absurd as it defies both the dictionary meaning and other usage of the word in the Holy Qur’an.

Meaning of ‘khalat’ according to dictionary:

Here the actual Arabic word is ‘khalat‘ which comes from the word ‘khala‘.

“Al-Khullu (the root of khala) is used for both time and space and but as there is a nuance of the past in (its usage of) time so linguists take it to refer to the past.” (Mufradaat al-Quran 1/158) …. and then he gives Quran 3:144 and 13:6 as its examples.

Thus he makes it clear that the verse does not refer to the death of the Prophets before Prophet Muhammad –may Allah bless him. It does not even deal with their being alive or dead rather it only refers to their fact of their having lived in the past.

Usage in the Qur’an:

The word is used at many places in the Qur’an and other instances with this word defy the claim of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

“The Masih, son of Maryam, is no more than a Messenger. There have been messengers before him…”

You should not be amazed that Mirza who took strong exception to above like translation of Qur’’an 3:144 himself translated 5:75 likewise. See Jang Muqaddas p.7 –Rohani Khazain vol.6 p.89

If the above translation is perfectly valid for Qur’an 5:75 why is it not so for Qur’an 3:144? If I call it sham and hypocrisy then some people might take feel hurt. To such I call on to reflect on this game of double standards and self contradiction.

Infact it will be logically wrong to say that either Qur’an 5:75 or 3:144 entail death of each and every Prophet before ‘Eisa or Muhammad –may Allah bless them both- respectively. As a matter of fact, while ‘Eisa Ibn Maryam walked this Earth another Prophet Yahya was also alive –may Allah bless them both.

While it has to be accepted why can then it not be agreed to that while Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- walked this Earth ‘Eisa –may Allah bless him- was also alive?

A very important point:

It is well known that Qur’an 3:144 was revealed about the happenings during the Battle of Uhud which took place in the year 3 A.H. and it was certainly all about the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- alone. In the year 9 A.H. when a deputation of the Christians of Nejran came to the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- during argumentation with them he said.

ألستم تعلمون أن ربَّنا حيّ لا يموت، وأنّ عيسى يأتي عليه الفناء؟

“Do you not know that Our Lord (Allah) is ever living but death will come to ‘Eisa?”

The verse that Abu Bakr –may Allah be pleased with him- was revealed in the year 3 A.H. and in the year 9 A.H. Prophet –may Allah be bless him- said that death had yet to come to ‘Eisa –may Allah bless him. So how on Earth can a true believer dare to stretch the verse to contend what Mirza Ghulam Ahmad suggested?

For an exposition of Ahmadi gimmicks on the above quoted report see THIS.

What did Abu Bakr refute?

What was the notion that Abu Bakr –may Allah be pleased with him- debunked? This is what is to be considered with due attention.

‘Umar and other companions in that moment of extreme grief and distress were awestricken and in that mode they make wrong analogies. They tried relating the case of Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- with that of Musa’ visit to Mt. Sinai (al-Tur) and of ‘Eisa’ ascension –may Allah bless them both. So the cases of Musa and ‘Eisa –may Allah bless them both- were the objects of their analogies while Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- was the subject.

While the verse he recited speaks that there were Prophets before him, it relates death to Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- in person alone. So all Abu Bakr –may Allah be pleased with him- wanted to clarify was that the Prophet had died. He showed how the subject itself did not fit into the analogies and this has nothing to do with the object i.e. either the visit of Musa to Mt. Sinai or the resurrection of the ‘Eisa –may Allah bless them both.

Rather, the fact that ‘Umar and other companions –may Allah be pleased with them all- related the happening to ‘Eisa’ ascension itself shows that they held the same belief as is the unanimous belief of the whole Ummah in opposition to the Ahmadiyya. On it they were as certain as about Musa’ visit to Mt. Sinai.

Had he any reservations about the object of analogy he would have refuted the object of analogy to kill the argument of ‘Umar and other companions–may Allah be pleased with them all.

This shows even Abu Bakr –may Allah be pleased with him- was at par with other companions about the life and ascension of ‘Eisa ibn Maryam –may Allah bless him. He just did not agree that something of the similar had happened to Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him.

Summary:

1. ‘Umar and other companions referred to ascension of ‘Eisa –may Allah bless him- which shows they did believe that he was alive and had ascended to the heavens.

2. The fact that he referred to ascension of ‘Eisa –may Allah bless him- while denying the death of the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- shows he meant it literally for only physically alive ascension does away with the idea of death.

3. ‘Umar –may Allah be pleased with him- also referred to Musa’ –may Allah bless him- going to Mt. Sinai (al-Tur) which proves, to him all he referred to including the ascension of ‘Eisa -may Allah bless him- was literal. It refutes the notion of spiritual ascension in ranks.

4. The word ‘khalat’ in Qur’an 3:144 does mean death and merely refers to something having been in the past.

5. Nearly 6 years after the revelation of Qur’an 3:144 Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- confirmed that ‘Eisa Ibn Maryam had not been countered by death.

6. The incident is rather evidence for the Islamic belief and not that of the Ahmadiyya.

7. Statement of ‘Umar and other companions and the reaction of Abu Bakr and no further objection on it from any other companion is an evidence of ijma’, albeit a tacit one, on the life of ascension of ‘Eisa –may Allah bless him- as much literal like Musa’ visit to Mt. Sinai (al-Tur).

I wish this paper helps common Ahmadi folk to develop an understanding of the things and look into the academic tricks of Ahmadiyya ‘intellectual elite.’